Eric I think Judaism as well as the other religions are just a tool to be used by the ruling money changers, at it's core I do not believe they really care to much about religion and most of these people have no real direct blood lines to the people who wrote the bible but want you to believe they do.

They get people to join there cause by legalized counterfeiting, it's just a mafia cloaked behind religion for protection is all.

Moretorque wrote:Eric I think Judaism as well as the other religions are just a tool to be used by the ruling money changers, at it's core I do not believe they really care to much about religion and most of these people have no real direct blood lines to the people who wrote the bible but want you to believe they do.

They get people to join there cause by legalized counterfeiting, it's just a mafia cloaked behind religion for protection is all.

I respect your opinion - however, I do feel that Judaism is very much behind modern Satanism movements mostly via their Lurianic Kabbalah, ancient Judaic focus on global domination and right to the world, total power, and control of all the nations/peoples.

There's no reason or way that the motivation behind world events is completely financial. Think about it; this doesn't even make sense. Money drives people, but what's behind that? - power...and what's behind power is often a belief system of some kind. It's a facet of something else much deeper, and I believe that's a religious motivation, so do many others.

A few paragraphs from the introduction of Erich Fromm's book "To Have or To Be", about how the "great promise" of the industrial era to bring happiness and freedom to everyone or most people via unlimited consumerism, pleasure and prosperity, has ultimately failed. So true isn't it?

Introduction: The Great Promise, Its Failure, and New Alternatives

The End of an Illusion

The Great Promise of Unlimited Progress-the promise of domination of nature, of material abundance, of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and of unimpeded personal freedom-has sustained the hopes and faith of the generations since the beginning of the industrial age. To be sure, our civilization began when the human race started taking active control of nature; but that control remained limited until the advent of the industrial age. With industrial progress, from the substitution of mechanical and then nuclear energy for animal and human energy to the substitution of the computer for the human mind, we could feel that we were on our way to unlimited production and, hence, unlimited consumption; that technique made us omnipotent; that science made us omniscient. We were on our way to becoming gods, supreme beings who could create a second world, using the natural world only as building blocks for our new creation.

Men and, increasingly, women experienced a new sense of freedom; they became masters of their own lives: feudal chains had been broken and one could do what one wished, free of every shackle. Or so people felt. And even though this was true only for the upper and middle classes, their achievement could lead others to the faith that eventually the new freedom could be extended to all members of society, provided industrialization kept up its pace. Socialism and communism quickly changed from a movement whose aim was a new society and a new man into one whose ideal was a bourgeois life for all, the universalized bourgeois as the men and women of the future. The achievement of wealth and comfort for all was supposed to result in unrestricted happiness for all. The trinity of unlimited production, absolute freedom, and unrestricted happiness formed the nucleus of a new religion, Progress, and a new Earthly City of Progress was to replace the City of God. It is not at all astonishing that this new religion provided its believers with energy, vitality, and hope.

The grandeur of the Great Promise, the marvelous material and intellectual achievements of the industrial age, must be visualized in order to understand the trauma that realization of its failure is producing today. For the industrial age has indeed failed to fulfill its Great Promise, and ever growing numbers of people are becoming aware that:

• Unrestricted satisfaction of all desires is not conducive to well-being, nor is it the way to happiness or even to maximum pleasure.
• The dream of being independent masters of our lives ended when we began awakening to the fact that we have all become cogs in the bureaucratic machine, with our thoughts, feelings, and tastes manipulated by government and industry and the mass communications that they control.
• Economic progress has remained restricted to the rich nations, and the gap between rich and poor nations has ever widened.
• Technical progress itself has created ecological dangers and the dangers of nuclear war, either or both of which may put an end to all civilization and possibly to all life.

When he came to Oslo to accept the Nobel Prize for Peace (1952), Albert Schweitzer challenged the world "to dare to face the situation. . .. Man has become a superman. . .. But the superman with the superhuman power has not risen to the level of superhuman reason. To the degree to which his power grows he becomes more and more a poor man. . .. It must shake up our conscience that we become all the more inhuman the more we grow into supermen."

Some western folks gloat over, how industrialization changed the world....

Well, somehow they forget to mention 9 To 5

Thank You western civilization for creating 9 To 5 Jobs and making Monday the worst day of the week

9 To 5 Jobs are the reason which kills human soul. Now, some will say, without it, you wouldn't have your car and TV, sure but why it always have to be to this question of misery for 8 hours for few hours of TV.

cdnFA wrote:Anyone who puts down industrialization is just so incredibly ignorant of what things were like beforehand. It's just stunning.

One could make the argument perhaps about pre and post agriculture if you are willing to wipe away much of the worlds population but this....

What do you suggest then? That industrialization is a win win situation for everyone? That theres only pros and not cons? Lol. Get real. Everything has a tradeoff. Yes industrialization brought a lot of modern conveniences. But it also brought a lot of negative consequences too, such as outlined above. You cant deny that, otherwise YOU are ignorant, not us.

The thing is, the Western media acts like industrialization and economic growth are a win win situation for everyone with only pros and benefits and no cons and negative consequences. So they are the fools. Why not counterbalance them?

You should also read the unabomber manifesto posted in another thread. It makes many logical points about why technology is bad.

cdnFA wrote:Anyone who puts down industrialization is just so incredibly ignorant of what things were like beforehand. It's just stunning.

One could make the argument perhaps about pre and post agriculture if you are willing to wipe away much of the worlds population but this....

What do you suggest then? That industrialization is a win win situation for everyone? That theres only pros and not cons? Lol. Get real. Everything has a tradeoff. Yes industrialization brought a lot of modern conveniences. But it also brought a lot of negative consequences too, such as outlined above. You cant deny that, otherwise YOU are ignorant, not us.

The thing is, the Western media acts like industrialization and economic growth are a win win situation for everyone with only pros and benefits and no cons and negative consequences. So they are the fools. Why not counterbalance them?

You should also read the unabomber manifesto posted in another thread. It makes many logical points about why technology is bad.

But then again, youre not a thinker. You only have a one track mind, evident from your posts. So logical intellectual points are probably beyond you. :p

First you show an utter inabiliy to even understand what I wrote then you use the unabomber as a source then you talk down to me. How about rather than take your views [as you don't actually think for yourself if you did you wouldn't be so quick to glom onto every crackpot theory you hear] from some crackpot maybe you should go to a real library and read some books on life in the middle ages.

I never said industrialization has no drawbacks, just that anyone with the slightest knowledge of history knows that on the balance that industrialization is a wonderful thing. Just because something has a few drawbacks, just because it isn't working out for you doesn't mean something isn't wonderful on the whole for humanity. You are so stuck in your HA hivemind cult that you just can't see it, or again you know absolutely nothing about history. It is staggering how you consistently speak out on things you know nothing about.

Also there is a huge huge difference between acknowledging some of the drawbacks to that wonderful thing called industrialization and calling it a f***ing Trogan Horse Trap.

Speaking of one track minds, you are the one who always takes the conspiracy theory side.

Winston wrote:U know the industrial revolution of the 1800s that started modernization was a trojan horse. It promised benefits and a better life, even a utopia. But it ended up enslaving people and turning them into machines with mechanized lifestyles, with consumerism and profit becoming the sole purpose of life, replacing everything, including love, friendship, the soul, and even life itself. Thus modernization was the most subtle yet all pervasive trojan horse and trap of all time. The biggest con of all history.

Theres nothing to believe in anymore. No glory, honor, valour, virtues, or principles. Consumerism has replaced everything, including the need for God, religion, spirituality, love, even the need for meaning in life. And profit has become the most important thing in the universe and life. Profit is above truth, love, principles, and even life itself. Thats sickening, immoral, insane, unnatural, oppressive and totally enslaving.

Now, with computer technology and the internet revolution taking over the world, the same will likely happen. It offers benefits but will eventually turn us into computers and cyborgs with artificial bodies and brains without soul. Everything will become a virtual reality experience, including sex. No more need for reproduction or families too. Government authority will reproduce the kind of beings it wants. The future looks like a scary dystopia. Dont u think?

I somewhat agree with the first paragraph, Winston. It won't be long now. How long you think it will take before the end of the world? You know this is all a part of prophesy.

The great apostasy (falling away from Christianity), wars, rumors of wars. How can the antichrist prevent everyone from buying and selling, unless there is worldwide connectivity and a worldwide police state? How can he rule without a one world government in place?

In any case, it matters how you use things. You can open your mouth and curse someone. Or you can open your mouth and bless someone. I don't know if that makes your mouth good, bad or neutral. But the blame belongs to the people wielding power. It isn't the technology but what they are using it for. They are using it to brainwash and enslave people, which is wrong. But there are nice perks as well.

A problem is that science, itself, at times is simply "demonic." This can be simply trying to "hack" the brain & do functional overrides of the mind, it can be things that just facilitate the general concept of substitution (like the idea of demonic possession), it can be things that guard the efforts at these substitution- a lot of things are toward that goal. "Erosion" in the broad sense, since it could just simply be destruction in both nuclear & non-nuclear ways.

It certainly aims very frequently toward "emphemeralization" (where you get more & more for less & less), which would at extreme levels have the effect of getting everything for nothing & exerting no energy ("living" like a mummy/corpse). At less extreme levels, it certainly opens up the opportunity for dependency (since everything happens "off-site") and problems like with the cotton gin (originally planned as a way to REDUCE the amount of slavery, but that didn't happen- quite the opposite).

Sure, science can be useful & there was quite a bit of superstition that was (at the very best) insane. The thing is, the same things can & do apply frequently with science. For example: all kinds of unseen things that someone just takes on faith will cause or cure disease- not much different from a belief in Evil Eye or magical amulets, is it? So much assurance of "certification," which doesn't necessarily mean anything if true. Maybe they're wrong, lying, incompetent yet approved, working in an organization that is influenced by others- any number of things. Seems it's only deemed accurate to say these things of priest, frequently- I guess those people feel reality takes something of a coffee break for people wearing lab coats or badges.

cdnFA wrote:Anyone who puts down industrialization is just so incredibly ignorant of what things were like beforehand. It's just stunning.

One could make the argument perhaps about pre and post agriculture if you are willing to wipe away much of the worlds population but this....

What do you suggest then? That industrialization is a win win situation for everyone? That theres only pros and not cons? Lol. Get real. Everything has a tradeoff. Yes industrialization brought a lot of modern conveniences. But it also brought a lot of negative consequences too, such as outlined above. You cant deny that, otherwise YOU are ignorant, not us.

The thing is, the Western media acts like industrialization and economic growth are a win win situation for everyone with only pros and benefits and no cons and negative consequences. So they are the fools. Why not counterbalance them?

You should also read the unabomber manifesto posted in another thread. It makes many logical points about why technology is bad.

But then again, youre not a thinker. You only have a one track mind, evident from your posts. So logical intellectual points are probably beyond you. :p

First you show an utter inabiliy to even understand what I wrote then you use the unabomber as a source then you talk down to me. How about rather than take your views [as you don't actually think for yourself if you did you wouldn't be so quick to glom onto every crackpot theory you hear] from some crackpot maybe you should go to a real library and read some books on life in the middle ages.

I never said industrialization has no drawbacks, just that anyone with the slightest knowledge of history knows that on the balance that industrialization is a wonderful thing. Just because something has a few drawbacks, just because it isn't working out for you doesn't mean something isn't wonderful on the whole for humanity. You are so stuck in your HA hivemind cult that you just can't see it, or again you know absolutely nothing about history. It is staggering how you consistently speak out on things you know nothing about.

Also there is a huge huge difference between acknowledging some of the drawbacks to that wonderful thing called industrialization and calling it a f***ing Trogan Horse Trap.

Speaking of one track minds, you are the one who always takes the conspiracy theory side.

You are the one who needs to get educated. You resort to ad hominem and ridicule, rather than present logical arguments.

Why do you say the unabomber is a crackpot? Yeah he may have been wrong to send bombs to people. But his treatise "Industrial Society and its Future" is absolutely true and brilliant? Have you read it? If not, then you have no right to judge him or his treatise, you narrow minded asshole. lol. At least I've read it, twice. You haven't. So I'm educated. You aren't. You only read what the government wants you to read. You don't read other sources.

You are probably dumb enough to believe in the official story of 9/11 and the JFK assassination too. Those have been torn to shreds many years ago. But you believe anything as long as its official. You even believe in the magic bullet theory that a bullet can zig zag several times while hitting two men in many places. Well so does Wikipedia believe it too, they have to, because it has the official seal of government approval, so Wikipedia is obligated to support it, because its philosophy is that authority=truth. Only dumbasses like you buy it. Well I got news for you: GOVERNMENT DOES LIE! And not just sometimes either, probably MOST of the time.

For example, when JFK was shot, 51 people heard the fatal shot come from the grassy knoll area. Some even saw riflemen behind the fence with their rifles, such as Lee Bowers and Ed Hoffman. Most of these 51 witnesses have given their FULL NAMES and testimonies on video, which can be seen today in various documentaries on the subject. And they claim that they will go to their graves believing that the shot came from the grassy knoll because they are 100 percent sure of it. Yet the government and Warren Commission claim that these 51 eyewitnesses DON'T EXIST!!! That's a 100 percent BALD FACED LIE and you know it! None of them were called to testify at the Warren Commission because their testimony doesn't fit the pre-determined official theory. This is a clear cut example of how government can LIE RED HANDED. No misunderstanding or debate here. You can't deny the existence of people who have given their full names and testimonies ON CAMERA! Duh! Yet that's exactly what the US government did, because there is a definite CONSPIRACY to cover up the JFK assassination, even today. That is an absolute 100 percent FACT. You can't deny it.

90 percent of Americans know this. You are probably in the other 10 percent of sheeple that believe everything the government says. That's why you call anyone who tells the truth a "conspiracy theorist" just as the government does, to discredit them. Well the best conspiracy authors reject that. They call themselves CONSPIRACY FACTUALISTS now.

I do not accept any crackpot theory. Did I claim that Elvis is still alive? I merely read what they write and tell you if it's accurate or not. I read the unabombed manifesto and said that it's very accurate and logical, because IT IS! DUH. What else do you want me to say? If something is accurate, there's nothing wrong with saying it is, even if it's written by the unabomber. The guy was brilliant, had a high IQ and probably works for the government today in exchange for not being in prison. They could use his skills and have probably utilized them. Just like they needed the skills of Nazi scientists after WWII, hence Operation Paperclip.

Either way, the Unabomber is MUCH MUCH SMARTER than you! For sure. You don't have great insight and depth like he does. You're just an average American who believes everything the establishment says.

There are many books in the library. What you know depends on which books you've read. Every source is biased in some way, including official sources. Historians can only be objective to a point. If they go to far in exposing a lie, they can get fired or lose their funding. So what kind of books are you talking about? Have you read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" and other similar titles? If not, then you aren't well read or educated.

Have you been to the Library of Congress? If you go there and read ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS, you find that much of what we've been told by history are LIES. A man named Eustace Mullins who worked at the Library of Congress did just that in the 1940's. He did it for his friend, the famous poet Ezra Pound, who was jailed for many years by the US government for exposing America's conspiracies during from a radio in Europe during WWII. Eustace Mullins was the first to expose the Federal Reserve scam and conspiracy and published a book about it in the 1950's.

Mullins also discovered things about history in the Library of Congress that we weren't told the truth about. For example, the War of 1812 started because Thomas Jefferson refused to renew the charter for the central bank, controlled by the Bank of England. We are not told that in government school history textbooks. Instead we are told that the War of 1812 started because British naval ships were hijacking US merchant ships and drafting the sailors into the British navy, and because of territorial land disputes in Canada. That just isn't so. Likewise, the myth that the American Revolution started because of "taxation without representation" was debunked too. Even Benjamin Franklin said it wasn't true. Yet school history textbooks still teach that, because it's what the power elite today want you think.

Eventually Eustace Mullins found out so much in the Library of Congress that he was fired from working there. People like Eucstace Mullins know a lot more about history than you do, Cdnfa, you dumbass.

There aren't just a few downsides to industrialization dummy, there are MANY. Did you read the Erich Fromm paragraphs above? Erich Fromm, the Swiss psychologists, has written many books exposing the failures of industrialization and why it does NOT make people happy, free or even mentally healthy. In fact, it's done the opposite. From wrote many books on this, so no, there aren't just a few downsides like you FALSELY claim, Cdnfa.

Fromm knows a lot about history too, which is apparent in his books. So does the Unabomber. So did Eustace Mullins. YOU are the one that's ignorant and uneducated Cdnfa!

Finally, you should know that what you know about the Middle Ages is cherry picked. Western media won't tell you that things were better before. That's not its job. It's job is to tell you that things were worse before and will cherry pick the worst examples. They don't give you a balanced view of the Middle Ages. Anyone who wants to make something look bad will cherry pick the worst examples, rather than focus on typical examples.

Modern schoolbooks generally portray the Middle Ages as a time of poverty, backwardness, and economic slavery, from which the people were freed only by the Industrial Revolution; but reliable early historians painted a quite different picture. Thorold Rogers, a nineteenth century Oxford historian, wrote that in the Middle Ages, "a labourer could provide all the necessities for his family for a year by working 14 weeks." Fourteen weeks is only a quarter of a year! The rest of the time, some men worked for themselves; some studied; some fished. Some helped to build the cathedrals that appeared all over Germany, France and England during the period, massive works of art that were built mainly with volunteer labor. Some used their leisure to visit these shrines. One hundred thousand pilgrims had the wealth and leisure to visit Canterbury and other shrines yearly. William Cobbett, author of the definitive History of the Reformation, wrote that Winchester Cathedral "was made when there were no poor rates; when every labouring man in England was clothed in good woollen cloth; and when all had plenty of meat and bread . . . ." Money was available for inventions and art, supporting the Michelangelos, Rembrandts, Shakespeares, and Newtons of the period.

The Renaissance is usually thought of as the flowering of the age; but the university system, representative government in a Parliament, the English common law system, and the foundations of a great literary and spiritual movement were all in place by the thirteenth century, and education was advanced and widespread. As one scholar of the era observes:

"We are very prone to consider that it is only in our time that anything like popular education has come into existence. As a matter of fact, however, the education afforded to the people in the little towns of the Middle Ages, represents an ideal of educational uplift for the masses such as has never been even distantly approached in succeeding centuries. The Thirteenth Century developed the greatest set of technical schools that the world has ever known. . . . These medieval towns, . . . during the course of the building of their cathedrals, of their public buildings and various magnificent edifices of royalty and for the nobility, succeeded in accomplishing such artistic results that the world has ever since held them in admiration."

The common people had leisure, education, art, and economic security. According to The Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Economic historians like Rogers and Gibbins declare that during the best period of the Middle Ages say, from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century, inclusive, there was no such grinding and hopeless poverty, no such chronic semi-starvation in any class, as exists to-day among large classes in the great cities . . . . In the Middle Ages there was no class resembling our proletariat, which has no security, no definite place, no certain claim upon any organization or institution in the socio-economic organism."

Richard Hoskins attributes this long period of prosperity to the absence of usurious lending practices. Rather than having to borrow the moneylenders gold, the people relied largely on interest-free tallies. Unlike gold, wooden tallies could not become scarce; and unlike paper money, they could not be counterfeited or multiplied by sleight of hand. They were simply a unit of measure, a tally of goods and services exchanged. The tally system avoided both the depressions resulting from a scarcity of gold and the inflations resulting from printing paper money out of all proportion to the goods and services available for sale. Since the tallies came into existence along with goods and services, supply and demand increased together, and prices remained stable. The tally system provided an organic form of money that expanded naturally as trade expanded and contracted naturally as taxes were paid. Bankers did not have to meet behind closed doors to set interest rates and manipulate markets to keep the money supply in balance. It balanced the way a checkbook balances, as a matter of simple math. The system of government-issued tallies kept the British economy stable and thriving until the mid-seventeenth century, when Oliver Cromwell needed money to fund a revolt against the Tudor monarchy . . . .

You know. I know I'm going to get called a Conspiratorial ThEoRRISTa or whatever for saying this... but everytime the topic comes up (this), something sticks with me.

It's several passages in the Protocols which talk about industrialization, the dumbing down of masses, impossible EQUALITY, having people argue over pointless shit until kingdom come, etc, that type of thing.
I can't help but realize, like another reasonably smart genius, and man (Henry Ford) that this is real; whoever wrote it, it's definitely real. Everything in that damn booklet is come true, every. single. damn. thing. If you've heard of it, and haven't read it - there's no excuse for you except laziness or just being a dumbass know-it-all, which seems to afflict people on a mass scale nowadays.
Liberty, fraternity, equality.... were the words which tore France apart, they stripped the monarchies away, they've made everybody dumb with delusions and hope. Hope - not wisdom. The world is not being led by wisdom anymore, this is a terrible thing. Look around you - how many have common sense? It is scary.

How else do I know this shit is real? I tried to make a Fb post the other day explaining what communism was. It was two sentences of truth. Fb blocked me from posting it - no explanation, nothing. Ha!
conspeorize that one.

Moretorque wrote:Eric I think Judaism as well as the other religions are just a tool to be used by the ruling money changers, at it's core I do not believe they really care to much about religion and most of these people have no real direct blood lines to the people who wrote the bible but want you to believe they do.

They get people to join there cause by legalized counterfeiting, it's just a mafia cloaked behind religion for protection is all.

I respect your opinion - however, I do feel that Judaism is very much behind modern Satanism movements mostly via their Lurianic Kabbalah, ancient Judaic focus on global domination and right to the world, total power, and control of all the nations/peoples.

There's no reason or way that the motivation behind world events is completely financial. Think about it; this doesn't even make sense. Money drives people, but what's behind that? - power...and what's behind power is often a belief system of some kind. It's a facet of something else much deeper, and I believe that's a religious motivation, so do many others.

You've clearly never wielded any degree of power if you think you need a religious impetus to want more of it. Power feels like a drug running through your veins, and some people can't get enough of it. But you need to take more and more if you want to keep feeling that high- being a middle manager feels great for a year, but then it grows old, so you want the next guy's job, and the next guy's, until you're CEO. And then you want a bigger company. And then you want into politics. Etc etc.

I'm not going to lie, the power bug has bit me in the past and it's a hard thing to not lose yourself in. I used to want a job that paid 30k. Then 50k. Then 70k. Then 200k. Now I'm considering subspecialties that could net me 450k or more, our thinking about working my way in as a physician executive. And the problem is I know I can't stop. I don't even spend a lot of money, but the power that the money and positions could afford me is enormous, and thus hard to pass up. And I can use that money and power to help people, which is fantastic and perhaps the greatest feeling in the world.

A lot of men in this world wonder why they aren't happy. It's all too often because they have a hunger to conquer and dominate that is not sated. Women are a part of that, and a means to that end, but cannot truly fill it.